[ALAC] Bikeshedding [was Re: Open Public Comment Proceedings]

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sun Sep 3 22:06:43 UTC 2017

For comments directly related to WG where we have 
participants, it is not a problem, They ARE the 
resource we use to determine if a comment is 
needed and at times to bring others up to speed. 
It is for all of the other comments that can be more problematic.


At 02/09/2017 05:37 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>Hello Alan,
>Thanks for your response. I think one of the 
>challenges (which by the way I am also guilty 
>of) is the lack of significant active At-Large folks in those WGs.
>My question then was whether those active in it 
>can help flag the issues while staff develop 
>documents that provides background explanation 
>which then helps those who are not quite active 
>to have the opportunity to contribute which may 
>then serve as sufficient information to improve participation in the WGs.
>Sent from my mobile
>Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>On Sep 2, 2017 8:09 PM, "Alan Greenberg" 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>Seun, I will note that there is a page of 
>upcoming public comments - 
>Perhaps we have people who would be willing to 
>review that regularly and identify issues that we want staff to brief us on.
>And of course, it would be good if we had active 
>WGs on topics that we know are going to be in out view.
>At 02/09/2017 01:24 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>>Hello Evan,
>>Thanks for this and for raising a point about 
>>what you think we should be focusing our 
>>resources upon. May I suggest you kindly 
>>provide references to the discussion you refer 
>>so that people like myself can also follow-up.
>>I think we should consider a issue triggering 
>>approach to help focus our discussion and spur 
>>up interest. What I mean by this is that folks 
>>participating in certain working group 
>>discussion that find something they believe 
>>ALAC should weigh in on can flag/raise it and 
>>that can form discussion topics during ALAC 
>>calls and on the list. I think that approach 
>>worked well during the transition.
>>That said, I wonder whether once someone raises 
>>an issue of importance, staff can be in a 
>>position to provide brief documentation that 
>>helps others have some background understanding 
>>of the issue in other to better contribute to 
>>the discussion. Overall we should not be 
>>waiting for PC before ALAC puts in position 
>>statements to WG and/or advice to the Board
>>Sent from my mobile
>>Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>On Sep 2, 2017 5:20 PM, "Evan Leibovitch" 
>><<mailto:evan at telly.org>evan at telly.org> wrote:
>>On 2 September 2017 at 09:05, 
>><<mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net> h.raiche at internode.on.net> wrote:
>>I've had a look at all three, and am not sure 
>>they are of real importance to ALAC
>>â€â€¹Holly is exactly right.
>>At-Large has a scarcity of volunteer resources 
>>­-- notably in those who have the time, 
>>skills and background necessary to analyze such 
>>matters and write cogent, relevant responses.â€â€¹
>>While it is wholly appropriate of staff to 
>>ensure that we don't accidentally miss 
>>anything, it is also incumbent upon At-Large 
>>(and especially its leadership) to show the 
>>discipline necessary to ignore that minutiae 
>>and concentrate on the larger picture of how 
>>ICANN actions impact end-users globally. We 
>>have not always succeeded in this discipline.
>>In fact, yesterday a software developer friend 
>>of mine introduced me to a term I hadn't heard 
>>before, that IMO well describes ALAC's historic 
>>tendency to get caught up in the flurry of 
>>responding to ICANN's trivia and losing sight 
>>of the real bylaw-mandated purpose we are here 
>>to serve: <http://communitymgt.wikia.com/wiki/Bikeshedding>bikeshedding .
>>Right now I am involved in a GNSO working group 
>>in which domain industry representatives are 
>>insisting to pore over every word of the Geneva 
>>Convention to determine whether the Red Cross 
>>has the right to ask that its names not be in 
>>the pool of domains for sale in gTLDs. At least 
>>from an end-user standpoint this is absolutely 
>>absurd; we don't need this kind of time wastage 
>>for At-Large to tell the Board and community of 
>>ICANN that enabling commercial (ab)use of Red 
>>Cross/Crescent/Diamond/etc domain names is morally repugnant.
>>Many other examples exist in At-Large. It most 
>>reliably emerges any time the phrase "public interest" is invoked in our midst.
>>Industry advocates paid to divert stakeholders 
>>from the big picture have created an ICANN 
>>process designed to distract and waste 
>>resources from those of us without the 
>>financial incentive or means to keep up.
>>This is bikeshedding by design. Resist.
>>ALAC mailing list
>><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>ALAC Working Wiki: 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20170903/48f91930/attachment.html>

More information about the ALAC mailing list